A new study examining the British public's trust in the UK's intelligence agencies has found that organisations, such as MI5 and MI6, have more work to do in this area to maintain accountability and legitimacy through responsible and transparent actions.
Dr Dan Lomas, Assistant Professor in the University of Nottingham's School of Politics and International Relations, polled 2,000 British adults to provide the first detailed study – published in the journal Intelligence and National Security – on the impact of 'openness' on UK adult 'trust' and 'knowledge' of the intelligence agencies.
In recent years the UK's intelligence and security agencies have adopted a public facing role aiming to build trust and develop wider public knowledge. For over a decade the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Service (MI6) and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), have used social media, public speeches and wider public engagement to talk about their role, recruitment and history.
By examining the impact of transparency, and the levels of public understanding about these agencies, Dr Lomas has examined the importance of this knowledge, and asks why should we know what 'secret' organisations get up to?
People will rightly say why do secret agencies need people to know what they do, or even trust them? They're doing a good job if we don't know much about them? Well, yes, to a point. The intelligence community can't operate in a vacuum, and they need to reach out for recruitment, communicating threats and adding their voice to security issues. Trust and knowledge are core to all this."
The research analysis, led by Dr Lomas – with colleagues Ged Hiscoke, PhD candidate at the University of Leeds, and Stephen Ward, Reader in Politics at the University of Salford – showed that while these security agencies are more trusted than politicians, these levels of trust are based on little, if any knowledge, suggesting that the organisations have more work to do in this area if they are to maintain a democratic licence to operate.
Despite these results revealing further progress is necessary to improve these areas of trust, the survey revealed that just under 60 per cent of adults, did have confidence in the agencies – far higher than similar trust figures for political parties and the government.
Other findings showed that regardless of extensive social media engagement, GCHQ remains the least known of the agencies. MI5 had higher recognition, while MI6 was second. However, younger respondents – the demographic the agencies were targeting – were less likely to have heard about any of them. Knowledge of agency names among older respondents was found to be higher.
Dr Lomas, added:
It's clear that the UK's agencies are having to develop their own voice because the previous strategy - get the politicians to talk on our behalf - doesn't work in an age of low political trust. The positive for the intelligence community is that they're trusted to protect UK security, yet the downside seems to be low knowledge of their powers and what they do can lead to conspiracy, or mean they are lower down the list when it comes to recruitment."
Even though transparency efforts from the organisations have increased, the study revealed that knowledge of the UK's agencies was often based on no information. Traditional media remained the most significant source of information for UK adults – suggesting that the strategy for high profile public speeches, reported on by media outlets such as the BBC, ITV, and other sources, was the right approach – but the new 'openness' by the agencies had little cut through. And fictional depictions of spying and espionage – what might be called the 'Bond effect' – still played a role in shaping wider attitudes.
Knowledge of what specific agencies do, and their powers, were also revealed to be lacking. Respondents were generally confused about the differences between MI6 and GCHQ. While MI6 has no 'Bond-like' license to kill, 39 per cent did not know the right response, and 14 per cent of adults believed that the UK's foreign intelligence agency could kill in the UK.
